Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-06-12

II EAALsA4I III LAAA4 = q EII4-A e. ~ r|ILHI4L.
e as tsstimgny true? In s1oporf Of
shsss wifDeeseA Mr. Ooswsy tsstises
this be saw defendant a. home abous
O'Clock n the morning o. little b@fsre
thai, aud thai be had started for Seattle
IN bis bsas aboat thai time. THIS 10 in
tended 20 oorrobofafs ehs othars, 90 tie
eappoeitio8 among other things. thai II
defendant h Shown 20 Be at hone about
that boar, the theory ID that be ooaid
nos have beeu 81 the plsse Of the murder
sb0ut an ko1r. or les than IN hour be
fore that. The testimsny Of Mr.. Ne
Rsdmsnd, Mr.. Miller and FItxseury, e
to the time at which they s4g dsfsnd-
ant here 81 Seattle that forenoon. 10 IN
tended 90 weigh Ia the same direction,
On the s0DposItIon that II be wss heEe
At the sine Fbese witnesses testified 70,
be e5aId not have been a. the pisse Of
the murder or at home a. q tine mate
rally later than 8 O'Clock and here il
this court house At OF before half-pasi
10 o'clock the same forenoon.
On ths part of tne plaintiff IL IL con
teBdsd tkat the defendants did not
leave hOzoe for Seattle until about OF
after 3 O'Clock th8t morning, and they
intFod1ce testimony BIZ Mrs. Burroughs
II
says be vas starting from home and she
ssv him and bis boat on the lake near
| Willow Point, absut $50 o'cIOsk, be
Iisvs. and that Conway passed hsr
houss about OF $50 O'Clock the same
morning. Smith and Waite say that
| they we're at Smiths Point on the ISL
and that morning and sAW Mr.. Bar
reuGhs's boat 1ass there, bat up to the
Il TIA - q ~.tafrmk Nka1E -
| defendant or bis boat. They crossed
from hat point themselves in a boai to
shis shore Of the lake and saw nothing
Of defendant or his boat. Martin saws
| be saW BaErouRhs cone and than came
70 town himself OF $40 o'clock in the
morning, bet saw nothing Of defendant
or his boat. White says he sac boat
back Gu the lake coming from the d.
rsetisA Of defendanl's home when be.
White, was on TOP ofAhe bill, this side
Of the lake. Nelson says he
saw defendant coming this way
Another witness, think his name ID
Seigle or Seigly. man with his team,
says be saw defendant about the same
same time near the same place that Mel
son speaks Of. Judge Green and Mr..
MoGrsv testified TO you as TO the time
ooBft adjourned the hearing thai morn
ing and the Chinese we're removed from
this vicinity and the shooting took
| place on that day in this city, In order
| TO show that witness NOR sdmond and
Others are mistaken as TO the time when
be or they saw defendant here that
| mosning.
Nov, gentlemen, Of course, II from
the evidence you fnd that there vas
time after the crime was com united for
the defendant to have gone from the
place OF she crime to bis Own house at
or about o'clock and reached Seattle at
or about the time testified to b. Mr..
MeRsdmond and the other witnesses,
then the testimony of these witnessed
as TO that issue Is perhaps not material
as To all the witnesses, except Mrs. Mill
or, Lizzie Miller, George Miller and Ev-
ans. and perhaps Conway.
One Of the sorest tests of truth IL that
the witness has always told Q consistent
story 10 court and out Of court and ev-
| eryuheFs and at all times, on essential
points or matters and one of tne ordi-
nary ear marks of falsehood is that a
witness, whether under oath or not,
wIllfolly makes inccnsistent and con
Trajectory statements ct different times
and places about material faots.
Much testimony has been given as 10
the time il might take the defend ut to
90 from the place Of the crime to his
houss by land and water. and from bis
house to the landing on this side Of ths
lake, all tending partly at least TO the
same issue Of an abb, and can perhaps
be reoonoiled.
As to the witness Fitzhenry, Rsatle-
men, deem it proper to sas 10 you that
his credit as a witness is to be judged
oy what he says and has said here aud
elsewhere, the same as every other Wit
ness. He and Allie May Olls, and
young Coleman aud Little j aek and al
the other witnesses stand upon the
same platform. viz: Have they told tbs
truth
# would be a very sad case, gentle
men of the Jury. II we have arrived al
chat state OF things in q community
where men do not think they ought r.
& II ths truth except when under oath
Another question of very grave i'm.
portsnce Rod of very material conse
qusDoe, gentlemen, il that Run, the
Winchester riffs owned aud in posses
sion of the defendant before and at tbs
time Of this crime, il be did own il sn6
have IL in his possession on or az thai
time. There is evidence before yen BY
DIR. Dawson that Mr. Coleman wa
killed by a gun shot wound. He ex
'racted she bullets from the corpse anc
they are produced before you here. He
says that they are bullets shot from {
forty-hve sixty Winchester rifle, and
the bullets are also evidence on that
questios. Il that true? There Is evi
dsnce hers that the defendant had suct
gun before, at and after thai time
Did be have il? His wife, one daughter
aud his son George know nothing, they
say, OF such 8 gun in defendants posses
sion. JOAN Miller says be knows OF de
PENDANT having such q quo. IL you find
that defendant had such a qua bsfore
at and after the crime, the inquiry be
comes pertinent under these circam
stances: What did be do with iti
What bscans of it7 You will recolieci
be testimony of Mr.. MsGrav as to his
inquiries sf defendant, and search for
9uas AAd defendants oondust in that
regard. And 700 have a right to con
slider ell these IN finding your verdict.
GsHtiamen, you are the sole aud ex
elusive judges Of the evidence in this
case and weight 10 be given to IL. You
are the sole and exclusive judges Of the
weight 10 be given 90 the testimony OF
each witness aud Q Ich Circumstance 10
the case proved before you. You should
noe rashly come to the conclusion that
any witness ooFruptly lied before you.
You should consider the maternity OF
the facts. Because witness states one
fact or series of facts differently al one
time from another, and that difference
IL as to some small matter or i'm
material thing or q mere difference in
the words used to express the same
thing, IL may be that such differences
are merely the result Of lapse OF time
/ or q change in a mans memory. At all
syents you are not 90 liberty TO reject
/ the testimony Of q witness merely for
sneh a reason. Take an example or
tvo: The testimony OF the witness Ma
honey on the question as 10 she person
be SAY rowing q boat that Moaday
morning. IL 10 in proof that be used
some different words in describing the
same thiog in his testimony az
Pert Townsend. Nov. we're the
words or facts 50 materially different a.
90 lead TO the conviction that be vii
fally mis- stated to you the facts there.
Take the witness Allie Nay Odds on the